Agree or disagree with what? There doesn't seem to be an opinion put forth in the article that I could see. It seemed rather matter-of-fact and neutral to me.

In my opinion WikiLeaks should not be censored, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I'd make the same argument for a website belonging to the KKK. However, I believe that these DDOS attacks are not helping the cause. They're just going to cause governments to seize more control of the internet to "protect" us from "cyber terror" attacks.

That was super lazy of me. I was posting from my phone, and I hate typing without a real keyboard.

I meant agreeing with DDOSing those that try to censor Wikileaks.

It's funny that you mention the KKK. Apparently they accept donations and their payment processor is happy to oblige.

I'm with you about the KKK there though. While they're abhorrent, I'm certainly glad that they're free to spout their venom.

However, I believe that these DDOS attacks are not helping the cause. They're just going to cause governments to seize more control of the internet to "protect" us from "cyber terror" attacks.

Yes and no. The attacks apparently weren't serious attacks and didn't actually do any real damage like some of the ones we saw around 10 years ago. They basically just popped the sites briefly and that was that. They did little more than attract some media attention.

On the yes side, I think you're right about those kinds of things being twisted to seize more control.

On the ironic side, I doubt that the DDOS attacks on the Wikileaks site would prompt any kind of reaction...

As far as it goes, I think I'm siding with the hacktivists. A low level, brief DDOS is roughly the same as egging some corporate headquarters. While civil disobedience and non-violent protest are always preferable, I don't think that non-violence is always the answer. (I take it that digital attacks are still a form of violence.)

As far as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal... WOW! What a bunch of pussies! It's just stunning that they'd chicken out like that. The guy hasn't been charged with anything and what was that old adage... Ummm... Innocent until proven guilty? Ahem...

Since when is digital publishing illegal?

I think this is really an acid test for freedom of speech. For the DDOS attacks, I'm not 100% sure that they're fully justified, though I certainly sympathize. Twitter doesn't sympathize though...

There's overwhelming pressure to censor Wikileaks and throw Justin in jail, so I don't see how I can condemn any attempt to try to raise the profile of their plight, especially when their source of income is attacked by the same people that want to censor them. It's the equivalent of muzzling someone, then suffocating them. It just seems like a form of resistance that is justified.

As of late I've been on a bit of a slow boil with the big-brother-is-watching direction the government has been taking. Sure a little corruption is necessary (and good) for any system to truly run smoothly. But the good-Ol'Boy-network got way out of hand a long time ago. Now they want to cry the blues because somebody snitched on their too-cool-to-get-busted asses (Whaaa) too bad ... They wouldn't have had anything to hide if they were actually doing their jobs in the first place.

But is that for wikileaks to decide? There are legitimate reasons why some of those ideas were classified, and legitimate concerns about a) the effects that the leaks themselves will have, b) about the effects on relations between said countries, and c) the effect on the ability to effectively gain intelligence in the wake of said leaks. In the case of exposing corruption and/or crimes, I see use, though I still think that legal channels should be the first recourse. But in these cases, the information is of questionable use, while causing real concern about diplomatic ties and future effectiveness. I think it's pretty dangerous, personally.

For a private entity to decide they don't want to do business with someone is entirely within their rights. It is not a censorship question. Quite the opposite: the 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to decide with whom we want to associate. So forcing, e.g., PayPal or Amazon, to do business with WikiLeaks is morally wrong.

On the other hand, using the fear of government "displeasure", as Lieberman did, is still a form of censorship. Were it not for the implied threat that something would be done to them, or at least that their future dealings with the government would be viewed unfavorably, Lieberman is acting as a censor even without official Congressional action.

The DDoS attacks are wrong both morally, practically, and strategically.

They are wrong as a matter of morals because (a) they ignore the right of these entities to decide who to do business with, and (b) they ignore the "collateral damage" they're doing to other people (e.g., merchants who can't make sales). This latter is particularly ironic because these are the same people criticizing (by way of wikileaks releases) the collateral damage that the USA has created in Iraq.

They are wrong as a practical matter because they may have the opposite of the intended effect. That is, rather than making companies think "I'd better keep WikiLeaks on my client list so I can avoid retribution", they are likely to think "I don't want to ever get anywhere near WikiLeaks (or anything else controversial) or else I may run into trouble", thus making life harder on WikiLeaks and many other organizations.

They are wrong as a larger strategic matter because they're pushing the US government's hand over network security. We just may see demands that traffic be monitored by Cyber Command (NSA) so that attacks can be traced if not prevented.

If you answered "yes" to 1 & 2, you were a revolutionary, and the type that sometimes makes a difference.

If you answered "yes" to #1 only, you were a dedicated supporter with revolutionary leanings, and the type most likely to make a difference.

If you answered "yes" to #2 only, you were just a troublemaker, and the type most likely to harm the cause - and get other people hurt.

And if you answered "no" to both questions, you were a dilettante and a potential security threat since you were the type most likely to cut a deal with the authorities and perjure yourself once the hammer came down.

Ethics aside, I'm wondering where in this spectrum the Wikileaks people fall.

Really? Why? Because some self important blow hard got caught popping off in an internal memo about a foreign dignitary? How about in the interest of professionalism (which isn't too much to expect given what they're paid...) they just kept the snide comments to themselves instead of documenting them on government servers where they're supposed to be archived forever?

It is absolutely no different then two IT pros leaving a location and (after accidentally butt-dialing said client) running the client into the ground. End result? somebody looses a client, and/or gets fired. Quite simple really, don't say anything that you're not willing to stand behind.

...This is the core premise behind why drunken ramblings are bad.

Aside from whether the WikiLeaks release was itself moral...

For a private entity to decide they don't want to do business with someone is entirely within their rights. It is not a censorship question. Quite the opposite: the 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to decide with whom we want to associate. So forcing, e.g., PayPal or Amazon, to do business with WikiLeaks is morally wrong.

Seriously? You are going to play the morality/ethics card for credit card companies and banks? Huge fortunes built on corpses and cocaine that haven't paid a dime in taxes because they pride themselves on tax (evasion) "loop-holes" that typically involve storing (hiding) money in other countries. Swell bunch of real down-to-earth folk they are...

The DDoS attacks are wrong both morally, practically, and strategically.

...And by that measure so was the Boston tea party back in the 1700s ... But some folk still do thing that was a pretty good idea.

They are wrong as a larger strategic matter because they're pushing the US government's hand over network security. We just may see demands that traffic be monitored by Cyber Command (NSA) so that attacks can be traced if not prevented.

Do you really think the government needs an incentive to strip away additional rights and freedoms? The DoH (and friends) have been doing a fine job (waving the "terrorist" boogieman) of turning the US into a police state on their own. They have no need of this silly putz and his website to crack down on anything. Especially when there is zero resistance to the crack down because sheeple really are dumb enough to believe the RIAA's (gov approved) claims that illegal music downloads support terrorism.

The guy is Innocent until proven guilty ... and until that happens, nobody is supposed to be persecuting/prosecuting him - That's vigilantism - Which I've heard is bad.

@40Hz - I love the elegantly simple street rules test ... Now that's how to cut to the chase.

I gotta go with Stoic Joker here. It's hard to play "fair" with nasty people who really never were playing by the rules. They're *trying* to set the game up so that the other side - we the people - can't reasonably "win". If we play by their rules forever, they'll keep rewriting them until we're essentially units of consumer capital, existing simlpy to continue inflating wealth for an elite ruling class. Sure, this sounds extreme, but it's clearly the end result of where we're headed, if unchecked. And who, pray tell, is going to provide those "checks and balances"? And with what means and methods? Revolution!

It is mind-boggling. Why would anyone allow an unknown party access to his/her machine to commit such a crime? The advice to all is that no matter what your views are, do not allow your computer to be used in a cyber war you will have no control over.

Ummm... Because... Meh... I can't be bothered. Anyone stupid enough not to understand the motivation and to report news in such a horridly slanted fashion is simply not capable of understanding why.

Anyways, that's enough info for people to get started and find out what's actually happening.

@F0dder -- yes -- they are somewhat immature and it is abrasive... That approach seems much better. The key to this all is to flood information out there for people to quickly digest. Make the information accessible. That really is the best way to get the message through. I hope it works.

Really? Why? Because some self important blow hard got caught popping off in an internal memo about a foreign dignitary? How about in the interest of professionalism (which isn't too much to expect given what they're paid...) they just kept the snide comments to themselves instead of documenting them on government servers where they're supposed to be archived forever?

It is absolutely no different then two IT pros leaving a location and (after accidentally butt-dialing said client) running the client into the ground. End result? somebody looses a client, and/or gets fired. Quite simple really, don't say anything that you're not willing to stand behind.

These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.

To take your analysis further, that's like me sending an analysis of a competing software design and the designers and our plans to compete with them to a colleague with my notes about it that we're going to use in the market, and then someone intercepting those and deciding that to level the playing field, they need to distribute the analysis.

At what point is that scenario drunken ramblings that I should have kept to myself? At what point was my communicating with a co-worker something that I should have expected to be disseminated?

Then you make it worse by disseminating things that were given in confidence from a competitor... do you think that you will be able to get any intelligence about competitors in the future?

2600: The Hacker Quarterly, has published a public statement opposing the Anonymous denial-of-service attacks on the services that abetted the censorship of Wikileaks. 2600's position is that the inexcusable moral cowardice of Visa and Mastercard and PayPal, etc, do not justify the use of brute force. Additionally, 2600 says that DDoS attacks are tactically unsound, as they create sympathy for these companies, and are used as a pretense for more attacks on Internet freedom. Finally, 2600 wants to strong disassociate "hackers" from people who merely run a piece of push-button DoS software, and to ensure that the security specialists, experimenters, hobbyists and others who make up its community are not unfairly associated with the DDoS attacks.

You are going to play the morality/ethics card for credit card companies and banks? Huge fortunes built on corpses and cocaine that haven't paid a dime in taxes because they pride themselves on tax (evasion) "loop-holes" that typically involve storing (hiding) money in other countries.

But this isn't quite right. Of course they don't need any incentive. What they do need is an excuse, some rationalization that they can claim is the reason they need to do this. The fact that millions of dollars in revenue were lost because some of our most important commercial institutions were crippled by terrorists -- and that this happened during the Christmas shopping season, so mommy couldn't buy that doll for little Suzy -- proves that the government is needed to protect the citizens. The DDoS attacks give that fig leaf of rationalization (even though we both know there's nothing they could do about it anyway), and this is the opposite of what (I assume) the Anonymous folks want.

A DDoS attack does not make you a "terrorist". That word is spread around far far far too liberally.

Some guy robbing a store is not a terrorist. A gang shooting up a rival drug house is not a bunch of terrorists. A man beating his wife is not a terrorist. Looters are not terrorists. When the Chinese military participates in hacking US government servers, they are not terrorists. Lawyers and politicians... errr... well... Let's not go there.

Terrorists get shipped off to off-shore black prisons where they are afforded no rights other than to not be tortured... If their captors feel like it that is...

The scale of the DDoS attacks was small and relatively unorganized. It relied on basic network load testing tools with a few sympathetic bot-net controllers throwing in some extra oomph.

Labeling people that participated in the attacks as "criminals" might be ok, but certainly not "terrorists".

If Anon and Wikileaks really wanted to hit back, the single best thing they could have done was to get the entire world laughing at the people responsible for what was being revealed rather than try to provoke moral outrage.

Governments and institutions are engineered to withstand challenges to their authority. And most are quite adept at redefining morals and ethics to suit their own ends.

But the one thing that authority cannot fight against is widespread ridicule and laughter at their expense. Emperors need "clothing" in order to get enough public consensus (or tolerance) to continue advancing their agendas. And this holds equally true whether they rule in the United States or North Korea.

So the biggest weapon that could be brought to bear against these men of little worth would be to expose them for what they are. And to get everybody laughing about it.

Most people lack the capacity to remain angry for extended periods of time. So while it may be true that anger burns hot, it also burns quickly. But a good joke has a half-life that can often be measured in years.

***

There's a story told about King Louis of France. Although the details vary, the most common version tells of how the king had his wig fall off at a ball while bowing to a young lady he was trying to impress with his non-existent dance skills.

Nobody in the room seemed to notice, and the wig was shortly returned to the king's head without comment or fanfare.

A visiting Hungarian nobleman commented to the intense young Frenchman standing next to him that he was surprised nobody had laughed.

"That is because I would have arrested them if any had - and they know it," replied the young man, whose name was Antoine Raymond Jean Gualbert Gabriel de Sartine, comte d'Alby - and who happened to be (among other things) the head of the king's much feared secret police.

"Arrest a man merely for laughing?" exclaimed the Hungarian Count in disbelief. "What possible crime could there be in that?"

"Sedition, my dear Count," replied Sartines with a resigned smile. "For don't you see, the authority and might of kings depends in its entirety on their taking pains to assure no one laughs at the wrong times."

------------

As long as they were either venerated, or simply hated and feared, the French nobility was unassailable.

It was only when their behavior attracted widespread ridicule and contempt that the revolution finally took place.

There the DDOS attack was compared with picketing. After all, picketers make it hard for customers and personnel from an organization/company to enter while negative attention (or press) to the place.

Which is the main reason behind the whole attack. And I cannot say that I disagree with that...or the right to become a picketer yourself. Or the right to break them up for that matter.

That these leaks that came out can be interpreted the wrong way...sure. And all of those comments could also have been preceded by the text 'In my opinion...' or 'I think...' and most of the diplomatic stuff would have blown over.

Then again, diplomats take pride in their fencing with words. But hey, you cannot be the best all the time, so be prepared that sometimes the joke is on you. If you cannot deal with that, go back to Kindergarten to take a 'refresher' on things that build character, like 'putting your money where your mouth is' and 'talk is silver, silence is golden'.

Even Poetin starts saying that democracy in the United States is rapidly becoming a thing of the past...and he knows